Talk:The Gathering Storm (novel)

Plot Synopsis

All key events in the book are related to Rand and Egwene. For this reason, I've cut all plot discussion that relates to neither of them. I've worked on the chronology considerably; in particular, I put Rand's visit to Tuon in between Nynaeve's discovery of Graendal's position and his attack on Graendal. More work may need to be done on ordering; Sanderson does jump around a lot, and it is tough to get right.

I've fixed a number of factual errors. I replaced male a'dam with Semirhage's term Domination Band. I identified Nynaeve as the one who used the Power on Graendal's pawn. I identified Siuan as the instigator of Egwene's rescue.

I added some details that I thought were important. I put in Elza's role. I clarified Cadsuane's banishment. I put in the difference between how the Seanchan raid on the Tower went before and after Egwene joined it. I explained why Egwene was angry after she was rescued. I added the link between Tam's discussion and Lews Therin's at the end: Rand can choose the "why" even when he can't choose the "what".

That's all I see at the moment. I've eliminated the plot tag for now. I don't know how much more concise the summary can get.Billebrooks (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Much more concise now and I agree with the plot tag being removed. Thanks for the work Billebrooks. Caidh (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on an excellent synopsis. This is the information a reader of wikipedia would want; much of it will be unavailable in book reviews in other media. D40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by D40 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think it can do with some trimming. Over half the article is now a plot synopsis. Now I've actually finished the book I plan to go over this article and flesh it out a little once I've finished my current article (User:Rehevkor/Draft, input (preferably on the talk page) welcome). The more information on the book itself the more info we can justify having in the plot. Rehevkor ✉ 23:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

We can lengthen the plot much more than that. With the size of the book, 500 words would not be amiss. Aside from that, we don't need the information about "the leadup", as that can be found in the previous book's article.

We need the bold title in the first line. :) --Izno (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bare in mind WP:PLOT. Reading what is already here the plot section can be cut down quite a bit while still keeping all the relevant information. We just need to consider what are major and minor plot details. The other articles can do with improving too. As for bolding, generally only the title in the lead should be bolded. Quality over quality is what is best for good articles. Eventually I want to see this article taken to just that at least, a good article, as with the other WoT book articles. Quite a task, but we need to follow guidelines to do so. The other articles are not without their major faults, just compare tEotW (90% plot synopsis) to what is apparently one of Wikipedia's best (featured) novel articles and you'll see what I mean. Rehevkor ✉ 02:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I was referencing your draft article, for which you provided little to no differentiating context. :P I quite understand how things work around here. --Izno (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, my bad and apologies. The plot in the article doesn't really need to be mush more than a brief summary, but I can expand it to mention plot points such as Mat and Perrin, and the neglect of Elayne. I believe the "leadup" information is necessary as as it is written it is only (or the majority anyway) in the context of Sanderson and tGS onwards (if what what you were refetring to). As for bolding, that is an issue but it can't be addressed until a title for the article is decided upon. Rehevkor ✉ 02:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the policy on potential spoilers? Is the plot section supposed to be detailed enough to ruin unsuspecting people who are interested in the book but may not want to be spoiled? Lambanog (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy is not to use spoiler warnings at all. If people don't want to be spoiled they shouldn't be reading articles with sections headed with "Plot summary" Rehevkor ✉ 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the history it appears I am not the only one who find the policy unclear. Please provide a link to a Wikipedia guideline or policy that states this explicitly. Lambanog (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER Rehevkor ✉ 19:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hyperlinking to Wikipedia policy pages

Is hyperlinking to Wikipedia policy pages or guidelines forbidden within articles? Please cite the guideline or policy. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, why don't you look it up yourself? Never mind, if you're too lazy to take 2 minutes and search Wikipedia yourself, here's the damn links- WP:Odd links; Wikipedia:Link#General_points_on_linking_style; Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Satisfied? Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that your way of linking there was just a backdoor to try to find a way around WP:SPOILERS. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Odd links and Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects do not appear to be policy or guidelines. Wikipedia:Link#General_points_on_linking_style is a style guideline but is general in its application and also provides this piece of advice: "Think carefully before you remove a link altogether—what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may be useful to other readers."

I cannot say I'm satisfied. Moreover WP:Spoilers is rather vague and gives no rationale for its being so its hard to judge what exactly it's trying to prevent and the spirit it should be taken in but it does say spoiler warnings are not carried any longer. Unfortunately it still doesn't define exactly what constitutes a spoiler warning. Is a mere hyperlink to a Wikipedia policy page detailing Wikipedia policy on spoilers a spoiler warning? Or is it an acceptable hyperlink that helps explain "technical terms, jargon or slang expressions" or that relevantly makes "connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully" that "generally should be linked". In my judgment the article suffers without such a link and am willing to refer to WP:Bold to justify having it placed. Still in the spirit of consensus can you give a good reason why it shouldn't be placed? Lambanog (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are dissatisfied with WP:SPOILER then I suggest you take your concerns there. In my eyes it is very specific: no spoiler alerts. Full stop. Rehevkor ✉ 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It provides for an exception. I will show you. But I will hear first objections based on other reasons before doing so if there are any. Citing rules is contrary to the avowed spirit of Wikipedia so a legitimate concern other than a rule being applied for its own sake might incline me to leave things as is. Lambanog (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR isn't to be used willy-nilly. Only in the case where we can ensure that what we are doing is so uncontroversially good for the encyclopedia should we act against guideline and policy... --Izno (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this worthy of exception over every other article with spoilers? If you want to challenge a rule, don't do it by disrupting Wikipedia status quo. Start a discussion, there are multiple avenues to do so (WP:RFC,Wikipedia Talk:SPOILER,WP:PUMP). If you do wish to continue adding spoiler warnings here, it will be considered vandalism. Rehevkor ✉ 19:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if WP:IAR is being invoked here a long hard game of scrabble read of Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means would be required. Rehevkor ✉ 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I may have misinterpreted Lambanog's comment. Ah well, he will explain if I did. x_x --Izno (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he specified IAR, but he seemed to be edging towards that way of thinking :P Rehevkor ✉ 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering how many good ideas are being consigned into a circular talky oblivion where they get kicked around until everyone with a bright idea gets bored of the officious bureaucracy, from what I see WP:IAR isn't being applied enough and has led to a mentality where "rules", which it has been emphasized over and over again are not etched in stone, are by default overriding common sense. So again I ask any of you, instead of citing an unclear rule which I think I can squeeze by in any event please come up with a another common sense reason against what I intend. Thank you. Lambanog (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Because spoiler warnings are unencyclopaedic, and "plot summary" is warning enough to someone with enough common sense to even read. Wikipedia once used them, but after much discussion it was agreed to remove them some years ago. If you really think re-adding them all is a "good" idea then I suggest you take the avenues I suggested, rather than going against years of agreed style guidelines. Rehevkor ✉ 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is basically there is a rule therefore I follow the rule for its own sake. Is that correct? Lambanog (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That is not correct. I follow it because it's there for a good reason, not just because it's there. Rehevkor ✉ 20:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

All right then, please explain the reason behind the rule that concerns you and why it applies in this case. Thank you. 1 edit. Lambanog (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I feel I have explained sufficiently and would just be repeating myself. You have totally failed to explain why it doesn't apply here. On top of that we have a consensus not to include a spoiler warning, not just here, but Wikipedia wide. This is the last I have to say on the matter, if you disagree about spoiler warnings then there are other avenues to take (WP:RFC,Wikipedia Talk:SPOILER,WP:PUMP as I said before) or perhaps other editors will be willing to re-reiterate what has already been said. As of now there is no reason or consensus to add spoiler warnings, and doing so would be considered disruptive, and reverted. Have a nice day. Rehevkor ✉ 20:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is hyperlinking to a Wikipedia policy or disclaimer in the following manner acceptable?

I wish to add the following under the heading "Plot" to the article: "Synopsis:" or as a backup alternative "Synopsis:"

Is this acceptable? 1 edit. — Lambanog (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Nutiketaiel's point was that links for style guidelines are universally not allowed on the article pages. Instead, they belong on discussion pages, like this one. Nutiketaiel also said that your change would still violate WP:SPOILERS. I agree with these points, although I disagree with Nutiketaiel's rudeness toward you.

As for why the spoiler policy exists: "Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary." Billebrooks (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the comment Rehevkor added doesn't count as a violation because it is hidden to the browsing user. Billebrooks (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am only recently active on Wikipedia so I missed the entire debate on spoiler warnings. From my perspective the reasoning the behind guideline is to put it mildly opaque. I have asked the others here for a common sense explanation of it and have only received a point towards WP:Spoilers. WP:JUSTA explains my reaction to that. From what you are telling me the common sense rationale is based on redundancy? Is that correct? Are there any other reasons? If additional information is given wouldn't that answer that concern?

Also could you point to the relevant Wikipedia policies or guidelines from which you took that comment you seem to quote and also the guidelines that support not linking to other namespaces. Even though it was cited by Nutiketaiel I think WP:Link actually supports my stand. Hyperlinking "Synopsis" to WP:Spoilers or WP:DISC gives additional information to the reader that clarifies what is meant by synopsis in the context it is used. A reader that arrives at the plot section might well ask "What does synopsis mean on Wikipedia?" A hyperlink can conveniently give such a person an answer if the user is looking for it. It is an option and like all other hyperlinks does not impose itself unlike the standard spoiler warning which one cannot avoid. This is one reason I question if WP:Spoilers applies.

This current article in particular is an interesting test case that makes me question the automatic assumption that people would know better when they see a plot heading not to read it if they are avoiding a spoiler. The Gathering Storm is book 12 of the very popular Wheel of Time fantasy series. It is newly released and reached number one soon after on the NY Times bestsellers list like previous books in the series. However, the author Robert Jordan passed away before completing the book and it is being completed by a different author. Moreover, Robert Jordan let it be known before he died that he expected to write only one more book entitled A Memory of Light to finish the series. Someone interested in the series but who did not pay close attention to developments may well get to Wikipedia via a search and wonder if The Gathering Storm is really related to the Wheel of Time or not and might want to take a sneak peek into the plot section for example to see if the characters are the same or if it's something else entirely. They get to the plot section and then what? They have no information to go on. Is it safe to proceed or not? Even if they are looking for some clue they won't find a helping hand to a common sense question they might have. What's really absurd is that an editor has anticipated this dilemma and wants to give a hyperlink similar to nearly all other hyperlinks in visual representation to help out but from what I can only think is a misinterpretation of WP:Spoilers is being prevented and discouraged from doing so for obscure reasons. Please anybody give a common sense reason why this situation should be tolerated. 2 edit. Lambanog (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in getting into an argument with you over guidelines. Instead, I'll give you some suggestions based on what I've seen from other wikipedia articles. If you want to protect readers further from spoilers, do the following: create a section called "Plot introduction", and make this a spoiler-free description of the story. You talked about such a hypothetical section yourself. Be sure to put the new section before the synopsis. If you won't or can't write such a section, you could create a section header and put a tag after it indicating that you'd like someone else to write it. Also, given how knowledgeable you are, you could also improve other parts of the article if you can find some references to back up what you are adding. Billebrooks (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I plan incorporate such a section into the article rewrite I am working on. Rehevkor ✉ 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "published" the completed sections already. More to come. Rehevkor ✉ 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Split article

I think that at some point in the future most of the information that is in the Development section should be spun out to other articles where they fit better Robert_Jordan, Brandon_Sanderson, and maybe even A_memory_of_light. For now it is appropriate because someone looking for this book will want to know it, but as the last two books are published I think that some of this information will no longer belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.223.137.51 (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Inexplicably?

I do not think it worth getting into an edit war over, but I wish to express my disagreement with the choice to add the description "inexplicably" to the plot summary. It is editorializing and interpreting the work. Lambanog (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rand's inability to channel the True Power is.. documented. The fact he was suddenly able to use it is incredible, at that point in the plot no explanation was given, no explanation beyond speculation has been given since (well, not before 50% of Towers of Midnight anyway). Without going into an incredible amount of detail and explanation into the True Power, more than a simple plot summary can cover, "inexplicably" accessing the True Power is the best and only way to describe it, otherwise it seems pedestrian. Describing it as such is not "editorializing", it is made clear in the plot the event is, for lack of better words, incredible and horrifying, inexplicably is the best fit.

To summarise : http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inexplicable

Impossible to explain; not easily accounted for. That is exactly what happened here at this point in the plot, it's not editorialising, it's mealy describing.

Rehevkor ✉ 02:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to cite and quote the passage (just after the comma, methinks), so that the word isn't seemingly inexplicably being pulled out of thin air. ;) --Izno (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Quoting like that for the plot is unusual.. but if the problem is the word itself, what would be an alternative rather than just removing it? Rehevkor ✉ 03:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I would not oppose "surprisingly", "in a shocking development", or something similar. I oppose "inexplicably" because it suggests there is not rhyme or reason for what happened. Lambanog (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well in that point in the plot, there wasn't. Rehevkor ✉ 15:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Gathering Storm (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha, I've read this and will review. I will make straightforward copyedits as I go. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

...it also addresses his struggle with his sanity following the events of the series - should specify (briefly) the events. Reads too vague as is.

embellishing on Sanderson's deliberations as discussed here would be good too.

I'll try and give this a shot. It's already cited several times in the article, I'll see if I can wean some more out of it. Яehevkor ✉ 17:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

one of the source pages mentions Jordan giving a verbal "gleeman-like" 2.5 hours telling of the conclusion to his wife and cousin Wilson - this'd be good to add. It'll be somewhere on the blog in '07-08 I think.

Seems to be this, I'll try and find a way to incorporate that later today. Яehevkor ✉ 12:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have incorporated it into the article. Not sure it flows too well, any other input welcome. Яehevkor ✉ 17:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a go at massaging it in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's ok. Just took a comma out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: One last thing, just fix up the refs as I have done with making teh accessdates look nice? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all the dates should be consistent now. Thank you very much for the copy edit and review! LxRv (a.ka. Rehevkor) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)